All,
Scott just posted this on the document, but personally I find
discussions easier on the list than in the document.
So we would prefer to see the MIT license over BSD due to
stronger patent claims, and as background, here is a link to
slides from a licensing workshop panel with Scott Peterson(Red
Hat), McCoy Smith(Intel) and Jim Wright(Oracle),
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-MmvjVWT5lCk-5iqCtH8XNlImZ5C07Ev/view
Personally, I wish we didn't have either of the BSD or the MIT on
the list since neither have a crystal clear patent license. I've
previously read Scott's analysis of why the MIT does provide
patent grants and they make sense. But the black-and-white text in
the EPL or ALv2 are even better IMO. The only reason I included
the BSD on the list is because I feel we have to. It is a
statement of fact that we already have projects using the BSD 3
clause. It is also a fact that we have many projects at Eclipse
that have been granted permission by the Board to use the BSD, but
very few using MIT.
That said, I would happily add the MIT to the list. But to be
clear, every single time it is used would require a unanimous
resolution by the EF BoD.
